First systematic analysis of its kind even proposes reasons for the negative correlation.

More than 400 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, Greek playwright Euripides wrote in his play Bellerophon, “Doth some one say that there be gods above? There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool, led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”

Euripides was not an atheist and only used the word “fool” to provoke his audience. But, if you look at the studies conducted over the past century, you will find that those with religious beliefs will, on the whole, score lower on tests of intelligence. That is the conclusion of psychologists Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman of the University of Rochester and Judith Hall of Northeastern University who have published a meta-analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Review.

This is the first systematic meta-analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012. In such an analysis, the authors look at each study’s sample size, quality of data collection, and analysis methods and then account for biases that may have inadvertently crept into the work. This data is next refracted through the prism of statistical theory to draw an overarching conclusion of what scholars in this field find. “Our conclusion,” as Zuckerman puts it, “is not new.”

“If you count the number of studies which find a positive correlation against those that find a negative correlation, you can draw the same conclusion because most studies find a negative correlation,” added Zuckerman. But that conclusion would be qualitative, because the studies’ methods vary. “What we have done is to draw that conclusion more accurately through statistical analysis.”

Setting the boundaries

Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.

The three psychologists have defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.” In short this is analytic intelligence, not the newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence, which are still subjects of dispute. In the various studies being examined, analytic intelligence has been measured in many different ways, including GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others.

Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs. Other signs of religiosity were measured using surveys, church attendance, and membership in religious organizations.

Among the thousands of people involved in these studies, the authors found that gender or education made no difference to the correlation between religiosity and intelligence; however, age mattered. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence was found to be the weakest among the pre-college population. That may be because of the uniqueness of the college experience, where most teenagers leave home for the first time, get exposed to new ideas, and are given a higher degree of freedom to act on them. Instead, in pre-college years, religious beliefs may largely reflect those of the family.

The gifted, the atheists

Is there a chance that higher intelligence makes people less religious? Two sets of large-scale studies tried to answer this question.

The first are based on the Terman cohort of the gifted, started in 1921 by Lewis Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. (The cohort is still being followed.) In the study, Terman recruited more than 1,500 children whose IQ exceeded 135 at the age of 10. Two studies used this data, one conducted by Robin Sears at Columbia University in 1995 and the other by Michael McCullough at the University of Miami in 2005, and they found that “Termites,” as the gifted are called, were less religious when compared to the general public.

What makes these results remarkable is not just that these gifted folks were less religious, something that is seen among elite scientists as well, but that 60 percent of the Termites reported receiving “very strict” or “considerable” religious training while 33 percent received little training. Thus, almost all of the gifted Termites grew up to be less religious.

The second set of studies is based on students of New York’s Hunter College Elementary School for the intellectually gifted. This school selects its students based on a test given at a young age. To study their religiosity, graduates of this school were queried when they were between the ages of 38 and 50. They all had IQs that exceeded 140, and the study found that only 16 percent of them derived personal satisfaction from religion (about the same number as the Termites).

So while the Hunter study did not control for factors such as socioeconomic status or occupation, it did find that high intelligence at a young age preceded lower belief in religion many years later.

Other studies on the topic have been ambiguous. A 2009 study, led by Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, compared religious beliefs and average national IQs of 137 countries. In their sample, only 23 countries had more than 20 percent atheists, which constituted, according to Lynn, "virtually all higher IQ countries." The positive correlation between intelligence and atheism was a strong one, but the study came under criticism from Gordon Lynch of Birkbeck College, because it did not account for complex social, economical, and historical factors.

Enlarge/ The relationship between countries' belief in a god and national average IQ.

It’s the beliefs, stupid

Overall, Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall conclude that, according to their meta-analysis, there is little doubt a significant negative correlation exists (i.e. people who are more religious score worse on varying measures of intelligence). The correlation is more negative when religiosity measures beliefs rather than behavior. That may be because religious behavior may be used to help someone appear to be part of a group even though they may not believe in the supernatural.

So why do more intelligent people appear to be less religious? There are three possible explanations. One possibility is that more intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. A 1992 meta-analysis of seven studies found that intelligent people may be more likely to become atheists when they live in religious societies, because intelligent people tend to be nonconformists.

The most common explanation is that intelligent people don’t like to accept any beliefs that are not subject to empirical tests or logical reasoning. Zuckerman writes in the review that intelligent people may think more analytically, which is “controlled, systematic, and slow”, as opposed to intuitively, which is “heuristic-based, mostly non-conscious, and fast." That analytical thinking leads to lower religiosity.

The final explanation is that intelligence provides whatever functions religion does for believers. There are four such functions as proposed by Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall.

First, religion provides people a sense of control. This was demonstrated in a series of studies conducted between 2008 and 2010, which showed that threatening volunteers’ sense of personal control increased their belief in God. This may be because people believe that God makes the world more predictable and thus less threatening. Much like believing in God, higher intelligence has been shown to grant people more “self-efficacy,” which is the belief in one’s ability to achieve goals. So, if intelligent people have more control, then perhaps they don’t need religion in the same way that others do.

Second, religion provides self-regulation. In a 2009 study, it was shown that religion was associated with better well-being. This was interpreted as an indication that religious people were more disciplined in pursuing goals and deferring small rewards for large ones. Separately, a 2008 meta-analysis noted that intelligent people were less impulsive. Delayed gratification may require better working memory, which intelligent people have. So, just like before, intelligence is acting as a substitute for religion, helping people delay gratification without needing divine interventions.

Third, religion provides self-enhancement. A 1997 meta-analysis compared the intrinsically religious, who privately believe in the supernatural, to the extrinsically religious, where people are merely part of a religious group without believing in God. The intrinsically religious felt better about themselves than the general public. Similarly, intelligent people have been shown to have a sense of higher self-worth. Again, intelligence may be providing something that religion does.

Last, and possibly the most intriguing, is that religion provides attachment. Religious people often claim to have a personal relationship with God. They use God as an “anchor” when faced with the loss of a loved one or a broken relationship. Turns out intelligent people find their “anchor” in people by building relationships. Studies have found that those who score highly on measures of intelligence are more likely to be married and less likely to get divorced. Thus, intelligent people have less need to seek religion as a substitute for companionship.

Give me the caveats

This meta-analysis only targets analytic intelligence, which surely is not the full measure of human intelligence despite the ongoing debate about how to define the rest of it. Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language (two foreign language studies were considered only because a translation was available). The authors believe there are similar studies conducted in Japan and Latin America, but they did not have the time or resources to include them.

Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society. More than 87 percent of the participants were from the US, the UK, and Canada. So after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative.

There are some complications to the explanations too. For example, the non-conformist theory of atheism cannot apply to societies where the majority are atheists, such as Scandinavian countries. The possible explanations are also currently just that—possible. They need to be empirically studied.

Finally, not all studies reviewed are of equal quality, and some of them have been criticized by other researchers. But that is exactly why meta-analyses are performed. They help overcome limitations of sample size, poor data, and questionable analyses of individual studies.

As always, the word “correlation” is important. It hasn’t been shown that higher intelligence causes someone to be less religious. So, it wouldn’t be right to call someone a dimwit just because of their religious beliefs. Unless, of course, you are an ancient playwright looking to provoke your audience.

1614 Reader Comments

The dogmatic provision "all people should be treated equally by their government" has a logical basis beyond mere revelation.

I think it's quite easy to argue against this proposition. Clearly not all people are actually equal in their physical and mental abilities, and therefore it would be rational for government to treat people differently based on their inherent abilities.

I understand what theory and scientific facts are Mephox. Like you said theories are supported by fact. All I'm asking is, where is the fact proving that life started by overcoming unbelievable odds of cells coming together to start life in a pond millions of years ago? The theory says it can happen, but there is no scientific proof to prove that it did happen. You can't have it both ways, if you are going to live by the scientific method then you have to stay in that world. I want to see the scientifically repeatable test that proves life can start by happenchance, otherwise your premise is based on faith and nothing more.

We can manufacture DNA strands and proteins under lab conditions. In fact this has been done for decades. And scientists have succeeded in creating self-replicating bacteria from synthetic genes. So yes, we have repeatedly created life.

I'm reminded of a joke that's paraphrased as when one person claims they can create life, God tells him to do so without using anything that God created.

I think Lewis is saying that not only does he find the evidence for Christianity itself compelling, but that by adopting a Christian worldview everything else makes much more sense as well.

Ok... but he says he can see the sun. At best (I assume) he imagines what God may be like then assigns particular deeds to him. Deeds that incidentally generally have perfectly good natural explanations.

Sorry, not a fan of Lewis.

He used the sun as an analogy. He believed in the sun because the light it provides allowed him to see everything around him. Likewise, Christianity provided him with a means of understanding the world around him. One could snicker at his quaint ideas, but it's much easier to be an atheist today (as I am), with all of the explanations that science has provided for the phenomena of the natural world. However, Lewis was born at the end of the 1800s, in a completely different world. Many of today's atheists would no doubt have been religious had they lived in a different time and/or place than today's Western world.

Lewis was born 1898. He died in 1963. In an age of scientific discovery. In England where there were plenty of doubters. Hardly the 1300's when the reason you quote for his faith may have been valid.

I realize he is using the Sun as an analogy. It is a bad one that sounds good to people who want to believe. Unless they stop and think about it for around 5 seconds.

In 1964, one year after Lewis died, 74% of Britons belonged to a religion and attended services, while only 3% did not belong to a religion at all. During his formative years, the numbers would have been even more skewed toward religion. So no, he wasn't living in the dark ages, but "plenty of doubters" is no doubt a gross overstatement. Compare that with 2005, when the numbers were 31% and 38%, respectively.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Lewis fan either. As I mentioned, I'm an atheist, and I find it irritating and laughable at the same time when people invoke God as an explanation for things that do not yet have a clearly identified scientific basis - or worse, when there already is a clear scientific explanation for something. All I'm saying is that even though I sometimes feel a certain smugness in my own rationalism (as you do I'm sure, given your last comment), I can't deny that if I had been born in a different time and place, even the late 1800s or early 1900s, I might have been religious, and so might many people who are atheists today, yourself included. Then again, my grandparents on both sides were born in the early 1900s, and they were all atheists, so maybe I would have still been an atheist.

Which brings up a very important point. Personal faith is all fine and good. But you can't even legally sell willow bark (which contains aspirin) and claim it cures headaches. And you can legally claim to have cured people of AIDS by waving your hands over them and ask people to send you money?

I think some of the abuses of religion should be curtailed by law. Amassing wealth beyond simple operating expenses being number one.

You're going to run into some major Constitutional issues there, at least here in the US. Scientology managed to go from scam to religion simply by claiming to be a church.

It's disgusting that someone could claim to cure AIDS that way; I don't know if the Constitution would allow legislation to challenge such claims by forcing the "cured" to produce a blood sample.

Basically, people have a right to be scammed. But not all churches accept these kinds of claims at face value; the Vatican at least makes attempts to eliminate natural causes of claimed miracles or claimed demonic possession, recognizing that many natural events can be mistaken for the supernatural.

People have to ask hard questions of their faith. Unfortunately, many people are not willing to do this, and so they leave themselves vulnerable.

I don't know that they do.

There was a case in Arizona some years back of a "religion" that involved paying women for sex.It turns out "freedom of religion" doesn't always hold weight in the courts.

I don't know whether what I'm discovering via empiricism is fundamental truth or not. What I know is that it works. I don't know that fundamental truth is a thing at all, and if it is a thing, I would have no way of knowing if I was gaining access to it.

Access to truth can be tested as follows: use the consistency property of truth. Nothing that is true can be inconsistent with anything else that is true. Compare every incoming assertion with everything else that you have already accepted as true (all of which must have already been checked for consistency) prior to accepting it.

Consistency is a necessary but not sufficient property of truth.

Quote:

If it contradicts something you have already accepted as true, then investigate to decide whether the incoming assertion is really untrue or the previously accepted things are really untrue.

And I decide that by...

Quote:

Experiments and the gathering of additional observations are helpful during this process. Ultimately, that which is deemed false is either rejected during the intake process or pruned away from the existing collection in order to allow the new assertion to enter. The current collection of mutually consistent, accepted assertions constitutes your understanding of "truth" at any given time.

...using empiricism? How does this help me? You want me to test empiricism by using empiricism?

I'd rather see a debate on the whys of atheism being correlated with intelligence rather than the somewhat predictable bashing by each major conflicting side of religion and atheism.

The debate is simple. Smart people look for logical causes of phenomena. Less smart people are willing to believe nonsense.

The reason you're not seeing that debate play out, is that we all know how it plays out. A majority of very religious people even agree... except as it applies to their particular form of religion. I personally know devout Jews who think believing in the Trinity is silly (not just don't believe in the Trinity, mind you... but actually believe it's silly). I know devout Christians who believe Scientology is silly (as though alien overlords are really any sillier than reincarnated man/god hybrids). And I could go on forever in that vein.

So if every religion has the high likelihood of looking silly to a member of another religion, what's the take-away?

I think Lewis is saying that not only does he find the evidence for Christianity itself compelling, but that by adopting a Christian worldview everything else makes much more sense as well.

Ok... but he says he can see the sun. At best (I assume) he imagines what God may be like then assigns particular deeds to him. Deeds that incidentally generally have perfectly good natural explanations.

Sorry, not a fan of Lewis.

Lewis was saying you see everything because of the presence of the sun, i.e. the light from the sun illuminates everything thus it can be seen. Likewise (for Lewis) god has enlighten him and he sees the world differently because of that illumination. It's not a bad thing.

There are many paths; Buddha, Jesus, God by many names (god, allah, etc.), the Tao, etc. And each path has the potential for enlightenment, and the potential for entrapment if you get stuck within the dogma. Even being an agnostic or an atheist is a path.

No scientific theory is ever more than one confirmed experimental result away from the trash heap of history. On the other hand, religious belief persists despite any number of massive contradictions. Logical empiricism requires the constant and vigorous exercise of analytic intelligence. Religion, not so much...

I agree with your point, but Newton's not really landed on the trash heap despite being technically not correct

That's because Newton is still useful in many practical applications of physics . . . trajectories, for example.

It's only on the grander scale of things he falls apart. Seems to me there is an analogy here. Religion definitely fails when it comes to the observable universe. But it still holds some value for some people when it comes to individual spirituality.

I think Lewis is saying that not only does he find the evidence for Christianity itself compelling, but that by adopting a Christian worldview everything else makes much more sense as well.

Ok... but he says he can see the sun. At best (I assume) he imagines what God may be like then assigns particular deeds to him. Deeds that incidentally generally have perfectly good natural explanations.

Sorry, not a fan of Lewis.

Lewis was saying you see everything because of the presence of the sun, i.e. the light from the sun illuminates everything thus it can be seen. Likewise (for Lewis) god has enlighten him and he sees the world differently because of that illumination.

There are many paths; Buddha, Jesus, God by many names (god, allah, etc.), the Tao, etc. And each path has the potential for enlightenment, and the potential for entrapment if you get stuck within the dogma.

Yes... but he can physically see the sun because it physically exists...What part of that are people missing?His analogy is bad. That's all.

If there is a Supreme Being, the descriptions given by the various religions of the world do not make sense.

eg: When we die, we go to Heaven and spend all eternity singing God's praises. Why does a perfect being need the adulation of who-knows-how-many billions (trillions?) of souls? How can a perfect being have self image issues?

What makes you think that souls in heaven would praise God because he needs praise? Perhaps they would praise God because they need to do so.

harmless, your answer was completely unscientific. When I look in the mirror I see a child of God, created in his image.

It was absolutely scientific. Seeing ourselves in the mirror is prove that life has, indeed, developed.

Yes, I know that wasn't what you really wanted to ask. I was being sarcastic.

Also, that "created in his image"' thing is probably the most stupid part of christian belief. That some religious people actually believe something like that in this time and age seems to confirm the result of the study we are talking about.

- I believe God has revealed himself many times throughout history, most notably 2000 years ago when Jesus was here in the flesh. The story of Jesus is better supported by documents and evidence than most other events from that age.

Ann, the Christian faith can be understood by experiencing it. There are plenty of cases where people who have had no religious background at all have come to know and follow Christ very late in their life. Most of those conversions have happened through life experiences. I suggest you read Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.

That is true of Islam as well. And many other religions. Your ignorance leads you to place Christianity in a special place when no such special place exists.

One of my idle amusements is the image of a very confused devout Christian standing in front of Anubis while he has his heart weighed against the feather of Maat and the demon Ammut waits to devour him should his heart prove heavier than Maat.

The thing of it is, there is evidence at all for me to pick Jesus over Osiris.

I think Lewis is saying that not only does he find the evidence for Christianity itself compelling, but that by adopting a Christian worldview everything else makes much more sense as well.

Ok... but he says he can see the sun. At best (I assume) he imagines what God may be like then assigns particular deeds to him. Deeds that incidentally generally have perfectly good natural explanations.

Sorry, not a fan of Lewis.

Lewis was saying you see everything because of the presence of the sun, i.e. the light from the sun illuminates everything thus it can be seen. Likewise (for Lewis) god has enlighten him and he sees the world differently because of that illumination.

There are many paths; Buddha, Jesus, God by many names (god, allah, etc.), the Tao, etc. And each path has the potential for enlightenment, and the potential for entrapment if you get stuck within the dogma.

Yes... but he can physically see the sun because it physically exists...What part of that are people missing?His analogy is bad. That's all.

Actually, it's quite succinct. You are being too literal. Relax. There are people who seriously believe in the literal truth of the bible, perhaps because they need that sense of surety. The bible, as well as many other religious and spiritual texts, are allegories.

People who are intelligent enough don't discard the supernatural "a priori" (i.e. before they even begin).

The ultimate problem with atheism is, how does someone prove that something or somebody (here, God) doesn't exist? Maybe they just haven't been looking at the right places. Maybe they have met God, but they didn't recognize him.

If intelligence only means "thinking only in terms of what one can scientifically measure", that kind of thinking excludes the supernatural, and as such, has no chance of finding it. And if God exists, then for a creature to reject his Creator, it's the ultimate missed opportunity.

To me, intelligence includes the capability to acknowledge someone's own limitations.

Right, that's why religious people are generally less intelligent. Atheists typically do, in fact acknowledge their limitations and don't claim to have a final answer to the big questions. Most of us are ok with not knowing. Many of us (not me) admit there is a possibility that there is some kind of Creator God, just that It isn't as described in any of the obviously fraudulent "holy" books of the major religions. Faith-addled folk, by contrast, are absolutely convinced that their wrong answer is The One True God's absolute truth and by definition, their commitment to their faith prevents them from ever questioning that Truth. Having faith that you have the absolute truth about something and that your God will be pissed if you question it, very effectively closes the door to any deep philosophical thought, so unused, the brain of the religion-infected person atrophies.

I think Lewis is saying that not only does he find the evidence for Christianity itself compelling, but that by adopting a Christian worldview everything else makes much more sense as well.

Ok... but he says he can see the sun. At best (I assume) he imagines what God may be like then assigns particular deeds to him. Deeds that incidentally generally have perfectly good natural explanations.

Sorry, not a fan of Lewis.

Lewis was saying you see everything because of the presence of the sun, i.e. the light from the sun illuminates everything thus it can be seen. Likewise (for Lewis) god has enlighten him and he sees the world differently because of that illumination.

There are many paths; Buddha, Jesus, God by many names (god, allah, etc.), the Tao, etc. And each path has the potential for enlightenment, and the potential for entrapment if you get stuck within the dogma.

Yes... but he can physically see the sun because it physically exists...What part of that are people missing?His analogy is bad. That's all.

Actually, it's quite succinct. You are being too literal. Relax. There are people who seriously believe in the literal truth of the bible, perhaps because they need that sense of surety. The bible, as well as many other religious and spiritual texts, are allegories.

Of course they are allegories. But then people take the allegories as literal truth.Which is of course nonsense.

But then again, so are most of Lewis' arguments.As is his sun allegory.Apples and Tomatoes.

My favorite example is Sagan's statement at the beginning of Cosmos: “The universe is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." This is a profoundly unscientific way to start a book or miniseries on science, because it isn't science and he has no empirical proof that this is the case. It is, or was, his belief.

Sounds like a definition to me.

He simply describes what he means when he talks about "the universe".

No it's not because he immediately rejects anything outside the universe (i.e., that the transcendent). Furthermore, he as no empirical basis to make that statement. Lastly, man cosmologists believe our 4-dimensional perceived universe is embedded in a wider multidimensional reality consisting of multiple universes. It's a bald religious statement masquerading as science.

You are mistaken. He is including any such thing into the object described as "the universe". By definition nothing can be outside of it if it is defined to include everything.

actually i believe hitler and stalin suffered very much and was fed up of the way everything was becoming around them. So they tried to control with iron fists. It didn't work and 'll never survive the test of time. What they did wrong was killing people for their beliefs. Killing another fellow human for their beliefs/ethnicity is what was wrong. Church has done that too. Prophet has did that too. Another human has thoughts and feelings like you. If you go through what they go through and grow up amid their surroundings, you'd end up like them 90% of time. Instincts of human beings are that similar.

* There are also extreme atheists, who would actively disbelieve in the spiritual even if confronted with a pure spiritual phenomenon, but since there is no widely verified/documented occurrence of such a phenomenon, they are usually lumped with the other atheists. These extremist atheists, however, tend to be the most vocal, and their opinions do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or world view of all atheists.

Having admitted there's no evidence of a thing ever happening, how in the hell do you claim to know how an "extreme atheist" would react to such a thing?

Why, because I happen to be one of those atheists. I am atheist by choice, not because I believe that the absence of evidence (and let's face it, there's been no real verifiable evidence of supernaturality in all of civilised history) constitutes proof of absence, but because I believe that belief in the supernatural is unnecessary in my (emphasis, my) worldview.

If a Supreme Being does exist, I would hope that Its purview of the Universe should be so vast in scope that It should have no care what meats we eat, or what day of the week we take off, or whom we choose to have sex or congress with. If It is so petty as to care about such minutiae, surely It would not be worth my venerance. And if It does not, and is indeed beholden to cosmic matters of deeper greatness than petty human concerns, then surely our veneration and the ridiculous number of religious proscriptions we as a species have come up with in the past 100,000 years ought be irrelevant to It.

My philosophical stance is that either God (or Gods) are irrelevant to Humanity, or Humanity is irrelevant to God(s). Or possibly both. Some people equate a search for physical and mathematical truth as God, but I believe that that is a turn of phrase that lends itself to unintended anthropomorphicization of cosmic truth (everyone knows the Cosmic Owl is an owl and not a man).

I know other people who feel the same way I do, but I also know many atheists who reject religion for any number of reasons (past history, unconvincing arguments, scientific rationalization). Just as I know less extreme atheists, agnostics, secularists and both casually and deeply religious people.

Ok... but he says he can see the sun. At best (I assume) he imagines what God may be like then assigns particular deeds to him. Deeds that incidentally generally have perfectly good natural explanations.

Sorry, not a fan of Lewis.

Lewis was saying you see everything because of the presence of the sun, i.e. the light from the sun illuminates everything thus it can be seen. Likewise (for Lewis) god has enlighten him and he sees the world differently because of that illumination.

There are many paths; Buddha, Jesus, God by many names (god, allah, etc.), the Tao, etc. And each path has the potential for enlightenment, and the potential for entrapment if you get stuck within the dogma.[/quote]

Yes... but he can physically see the sun because it physically exists...What part of that are people missing?His analogy is bad. That's all.[/quote]

Actually, it's quite succinct. You are being too literal. Relax. There are people who seriously believe in the literal truth of the bible, perhaps because they need that sense of surety. The bible, as well as many other religious and spiritual texts, are allegories.[/quote]

Of course they are allegories. But then people take the allegories as literal truth.Which is of course nonsense.

But then again, so are most of Lewis' arguments.As is his sun allegory.Apples and Tomatoes.[/quote]

The problem for some people with allegories is that it leaves it up to the reader to interpret and interpretation is a life long endeavor. Some bit of wisdom you read at 21 may click at 31 or later. Your life is a long running program that you need to pay attention to if you want to really learn anything about yourself or the world. People are in a hurry. It's easier for people to look at an allegory as truth than to look at it as a lesson that they have to participate in getting the answer.

But then again, so are most of Lewis' arguments.As is his sun allegory.Apples and Tomatoes.

The problem for some people with allegories is that it leaves it up to the reader to interpret and interpretation is a life long endeavor. Some bit of wisdom you read at 21 may click at 31 or later. Your life is a long running program that you need to pay attention to if you want to really learn anything about yourself or the world. People are in a hurry. It's easier for people to look at an allegory as truth than to look at it as a lesson that they have to participate in getting the answer.[/quote]

I understand what theory and scientific facts are Mephox. Like you said theories are supported by fact. All I'm asking is, where is the fact proving that life started by overcoming unbelievable odds of cells coming together to start life in a pond millions of years ago? The theory says it can happen, but there is no scientific proof to prove that it did happen. You can't have it both ways, if you are going to live by the scientific method then you have to stay in that world. I want to see the scientifically repeatable test that proves life can start by happenchance, otherwise your premise is based on faith and nothing more.

He's not having it both ways. The mechanics of how life began has not been resolved. There is ongoing research into the matter.

Using the scientific method does not mean that you know everything. There are plenty of unexplained things in the world that science cannot explain. However, those things have also been observed, or there is a record/fossils/whatever that something happened.

Because science cannot currently explain how something works does not mean that you throw out everything else.

Do you see the word proven anywhere in my post? I don't. I can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have sufficient evidence that I'm willing to believe it will.

Yes - you say:

Quote:

You'd choose to accept a claim that can't be proven? If so you horrendously misplace the burden of proof.

Quote:

Quote:

vishnu wrote:

More specifically, I don't know whether what I'm discovering via empiricism is fundamental truth or not. What I know is that it works. I don't know that fundamental truth is a thing at all, and if it is a thing, I would have no way of knowing if I was gaining access to it.

Certainly no way of knowing if you constrain yourself to empirical analysis.

Explain to me what method of analysis I should be using. Please take extra care in explaining the ways in which I can determine the reliability of my analysis, please.

My point is that restricting ourselves to methods of analysis that arise from a purely materialist worldview is nonsensical when trying to ascertain the existence of a supernatural being.

Say you assume a supernatural deity along the lines of the Christian God: supposedly he hears the prayers of his creatures. If this is true then just perhaps he would answer if asked to reveal himself. Or he wouldn't. But at least then you would have used the appropriate "tools" that arise from the supernatural worldview you are attempting to analyse. You would of course need to study what the Bible says on prayer and it's intended use, so that you could be sure you were utilising this tool appropriately for the system it purports to belong to. It sounds ridiculous to even try that - but only because we have a deep-seated materialist bias (myself included) and put the cart before the horse when it comes to choosing our methods of analysis.

Which brings up a very important point. Personal faith is all fine and good. But you can't even legally sell willow bark (which contains aspirin) and claim it cures headaches. And you can legally claim to have cured people of AIDS by waving your hands over them and ask people to send you money?

I think some of the abuses of religion should be curtailed by law. Amassing wealth beyond simple operating expenses being number one.

You're going to run into some major Constitutional issues there, at least here in the US. Scientology managed to go from scam to religion simply by claiming to be a church.

It's disgusting that someone could claim to cure AIDS that way; I don't know if the Constitution would allow legislation to challenge such claims by forcing the "cured" to produce a blood sample.

Basically, people have a right to be scammed. But not all churches accept these kinds of claims at face value; the Vatican at least makes attempts to eliminate natural causes of claimed miracles or claimed demonic possession, recognizing that many natural events can be mistaken for the supernatural.

People have to ask hard questions of their faith. Unfortunately, many people are not willing to do this, and so they leave themselves vulnerable.

I don't know that they do.

There was a case in Arizona some years back of a "religion" that involved paying women for sex.It turns out "freedom of religion" doesn't always hold weight in the courts.

Whoever founded that religion must have been really stupid.Most men who found religions these days at least claim that the women are supposed to have sex with them for free.

But then again, so are most of Lewis' arguments.As is his sun allegory.Apples and Tomatoes.

The problem for some people with allegories is that it leaves it up to the reader to interpret and interpretation is a life long endeavor. Some bit of wisdom you read at 21 may click at 31 or later. Your life is a long running program that you need to pay attention to if you want to really learn anything about yourself or the world. People are in a hurry. It's easier for people to look at an allegory as truth than to look at it as a lesson that they have to participate in getting the answer.

[/quote]

I am an old guy for this site at 42.On thing I have learned is that sometimes nonsense doesn't have a hidden meaning. It is just nonsense people feel good about.

* There are also extreme atheists, who would actively disbelieve in the spiritual even if confronted with a pure spiritual phenomenon, but since there is no widely verified/documented occurrence of such a phenomenon, they are usually lumped with the other atheists. These extremist atheists, however, tend to be the most vocal, and their opinions do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or world view of all atheists.

Having admitted there's no evidence of a thing ever happening, how in the hell do you claim to know how an "extreme atheist" would react to such a thing?

Why, because I happen to be one of those atheists. I am atheist by choice, not because I believe that the absence of evidence (and let's face it, there's been no real verifiable evidence of supernaturality in all of civilised history) constitutes proof of absence, but because I believe that belief in the supernatural is unnecessary in my (emphasis, my) worldview.

If a Supreme Being does exist, I would hope that Its purview of the Universe should be so vast in scope that It should have no care what meats we eat, or what day of the week we take off, or whom we choose to have sex or congress with. If It is so petty as to care about such minutiae, surely It would not be worth my venerance. And if It does not, and is indeed beholden to cosmic matters of deeper greatness than petty human concerns, then surely our veneration and the ridiculous number of religious proscriptions we as a species have come up with in the past 100,000 years ought be irrelevant to It.

My philosophical stance is that either God (or Gods) are irrelevant to Humanity, or Humanity is irrelevant to God(s). Or possibly both. Some people equate a search for physical and mathematical truth as God, but I believe that that is a turn of phrase that lends itself to unintended anthropomorphicization of cosmic truth (everyone knows the Cosmic Owl is an owl and not a man).

I know other people who feel the same way I do, but I also know many atheists who reject religion for any number of reasons (past history, unconvincing arguments, scientific rationalization). Just as I know less extreme atheists, agnostics, secularists and both casually and deeply religious people.

Your conclusion is basically that you will believe your own internally-derived worldview regardless of evidence, just as surely as a religious person. Great... way to attack the problem at its root.

Really, how is that? The Bible explains the observable universe very nicely. Mentions that the earth is round, and describes dinosaurs to name just two examples.

You, sir, with all due respect (ie, very little ) are just another faith-head who refuses to read his Bible and insists on repeating lies about what it says. How can the Biblically described Earth be round if there can be a tower from which all of the earth can be seen? Dragons are mythical creatures created by the imaginations of the same self-serving religious leaders who invented God in the first place -- not dinosaurs and are not described as looking like any dinosaur ever discovered. Not only does the Bible fail to describe the real world, it is not even consistent in the stories it tells about how its imaginary world unfolded. There are two mutually incompatible versions of Genesis, to name just one of literally hundreds of passages which contradict other passages. Maybe one reason Atheists are on average smarter than faith-heads, is that we can and do actually read pretty much anything we can get our hands on. Reading the Bible is one of the most effective ways of coming to Atheism.